Ms.
Melinda Tillitt appeals from her conviction following a jury
trial for five counts of first-degree statutory sodomy,
§ 566.062, and one count of first-degree child
molestation, § 566.067.[1] The Macon County Circuit Court
sentenced her to six consecutive fifteen-year terms of
imprisonment for a total of ninety years. She challenges the
trial court's decision to overrule her motion to suppress
her purportedly involuntary statements to police and her
objection to certain testimony of a forensic interviewer, and
she seeks plain-error review of the trial court's
sentence of consecutive terms of imprisonment under section
558.026. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Factual
and Procedural Background

Ms.
Tillitt was initially charged in May 2015 with four counts of
first-degree statutory sodomy for deviate sexual intercourse
involving one of her daughters, K.B.T. The information was
later amended to add one count of first-degree statutory
sodomy for deviate sexual intercourse and one count of
first-degree child molestation for sexual contact involving
another daughter, K.D.T. The girls had been removed from the
home in August 2014 after their church pastor reported that
they had been physically abused. K.B.T. did not disclose that
Ms. Tillitt had sexually abused her until March 2015. Ms.
Tillitt was arrested at her workplace on March 14, 2015, and
taken to the police station. There, over the course of a
recorded one-hour, twenty-minute interview, Ms. Tillitt
ultimately made statements admitting some of the allegations
as to K.B.T and indicated that "there might be some
issues" with K.D.T. She then prepared a written
statement admitting that she had sexually abused both
daughters. Following arraignment in Shelby County, the case
was transferred on a change of venue to Macon County.

Before
trial, Ms. Tillitt filed a motion to suppress "evidence
of statements taken from defendant by law enforcement
agents" purportedly obtained in violation of her
constitutional rights against self-incrimination, right to
counsel, and due process. Without distinguishing between the
audio recording and written statement, Ms. Tillitt claimed
that (1) her police custody and interview were
"inherently coercive, " (2) "[t]he
statement" did not accurately reflect her conversation
with the interviewing officers, (3) the statement was
obtained by threats and promises made before and during the
interview, and (4) any alleged statements were "the
result of an unlawful arrest." The trial court held a
suppression hearing and denied the motion.

Thereafter,
Ms. Tillitt filed several motions in limine including one to
prohibit the State from adducing testimony or evidence from
the girls' forensic interviewer, Ms. Faith Wemhoff, about
"the process of disclosure among victims of sexual
abuse, specifically concerning the reasons why a victim may
not initially disclose." Another motion in limine sought
to exclude a redacted, twenty-minute audio recording of Ms.
Tillitt's police interview. She claimed that it was not a
complete and accurate representation of the interview and
that, if the State sought to introduce a recording of the
interview, it should use the entire recording "or not
introduce it at all." The trial court indicated before
trial that the State was entitled to present the redacted
version of the audio recording during its case in chief,
while Ms. Tillitt could then present the entire recording in
her defense.

K.D.T.
and K.B.T. were 17 years old when they testified during
trial. Because the family had moved often over the years,
they were able to relate their ages and the specific sexual
acts allegedly perpetrated by their mother to the homes in
which they had lived. K.D.T. testified that her earliest
memory of inappropriate touching was when she was about 5 or
6 years old and the family was living in a trailer home. Her
mother touched K.D.T.'s chest and her vagina, putting her
fingers inside of her. K.D.T. also testified that her mother
joined her in the bathtub when the family lived on Walnut
Street, when she was about 7, 8, or 9, and forced K.D.T. to
touch her mother's vagina with her fingers and her mouth.
During this incident, K.D.T. recalled that her mother touched
K.D.T.'s vagina with her mouth and fingers and forced
K.D.T.'s head under the water. K.D.T. testified about
other similar touching and oral-contact incidents occurring
in her mother's bedroom and in her bedroom and that her
mother would put her tongue in K.D.T's vagina and move it
around inside. According to K.D.T., such abuse happened more
times than she could count. And it happened when they lived
in other homes.

K.B.T.'s
earliest memory was about an incident that occurred when she
was about 5 or 6 years old and her mother came into her
bedroom and put her hand down K.B.T.'s pants and up her
shirt to touch her vagina and breasts. K.B.T. also testified
that her mother entered the bathroom while she was taking a
bath, got into the tub with her and forced K.B.T. to lick her
vagina and then licked K.B.T.'s vagina. K.B.T. testified
that this happened more than once, and she also recalled
similar touching and oral-contact incidents in her bedroom
and her mother's bedroom when the family lived in other
houses. K.B.T. also testified that her mother put her fingers
inside K.B.T.'s vagina and had K.B.T. do the same to her.
K.B.T. further testified that her mother touched her vagina
inside and outside while they were in the living room in the
presence of other people and K.B.T. and her mother were
covered by a blanket. Ms. Tillitt also allegedly showed
K.B.T. magazines with pictures of naked people and showed her
sex toys and how to use them.

During
trial, the State moved to admit the full one-hour,
twenty-minute audio recording of Ms. Tillitt's police
interview. Ms. Tillitt's counsel stated that the defense
did not object to its admission.[2] The State also sought to
admit the twenty-minute, redacted version of the police
interview of Ms. Tillitt, and she renewed the objection made
in her motion in limine, i.e., challenging its completeness
and accuracy. The court overruled the objection and accorded
Ms. Tillitt a continuing objection. The State played the
shorter version of the audio for the jury. While questioning
the police officer who conducted the interview, the State
asked about the written admission signed by Ms. Tillitt and
moved to admit it. Ms. Tillitt then renewed her motion to
suppress as to her "confession" on the ground that
it violated her right not to incriminate herself and violated
her right to a fair and impartial jury under the U.S. and
Missouri constitutions. The court overruled the objection and
admitted the written confession into evidence. Ms. Tillitt
also objected to the testimony of the witness who had
conducted the girls' forensic interviews; among other
matters, the State had called Ms. Faith Wemhoff to testify
generally about how children disclose sexual abuse, i.e.,
"the process of disclosure." Ms. Tillitt claimed
that the admission of such testimony would violate her right
to a fair trial and her rights under the U.S. and Missouri
constitutions . The court overruled the objection. Ms.
Wemhoff testified that children go through a process that is
often delayed and takes place over time due to elements of
secrecy, fear, guilt, shame, and embarrassment. Ms. Tillitt
filed motions for acquittal at the close of the State's
evidence and at the close of all the evidence, which the
court overruled.

The
jury deliberated for about two-and-one-half hours and
returned a guilty verdict on all counts. The trial court
denied Ms. Tillitt's motion for judgment of acquittal
notwithstanding the jury's verdict or motion for new
trial. Among other matters, she had claimed as error the
court's overruling of her motions in limine regarding the
admission of testimony about the process of disclosure and
the redacted audio recording of her police interview. She had
also challenged the court's overruling of her motion to
suppress statements and its renewal at trial, and her renewed
objections at trial to testimony about the process of
disclosure and to the redacted audio recording.

At
sentencing, the State requested the maximum sentence on all
counts and stated that the minimum possible sentence would be
forty-five years given that "the statutory sodomy first
has to run consecutively with one another." The court
then asked, "You're saying that no matter what
sentence she gets it has to be consecutive." The
prosecutor replied, "For the statutory sodomy first,
those have to run consecutive." Ms. Tillitt's
counsel agreed, stating, "That's 558.026. It is the
consecutive concurrent statute and lists which offenses must
be run consecutively. They are largely sex crimes and
statutory sodomy first is on that list. They must be run
consecutive to one another and anything else on that
list." The court took a recess, and, before sentencing
Ms. Tillitt, the court expressed its understanding of the
statute as follows: "Thank you everyone. Please be
seated. Okay, so I've been trying to understand the
legislative reasoning for consecutive sentences. And once I
sort of opened my mind to it it kind of makes sense."
The court sentenced Ms. Tillitt to consecutive terms of
imprisonment as indicated above, and this timely appeal
followed.

Legal
Analysis

In the
first point, Ms. Tillitt argues that the trial court erred in
overruling her motion to suppress statements and in admitting
her statements to the police officers into evidence over her
objection. She claims that the statements were taken in
violation of her right to due process and her privilege
against self-incrimination under the U.S. and Missouri
constitutions, in that "the statements were involuntary
under the totality of the circumstances, which included [Ms.
Tillitt's] mental state and the officers'
actions."[3] She does not distinguish among the full
audio recording of her interview, the shorter, redacted
version, or the written admission she made following the
interview, each of which the trial court admitted into
evidence.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Because
a ruling on a motion to suppress is interlocutory, a
defendant must make "an objection at the time the
evidence is offered for admission at trial" to preserve
the issue of its admissibility for review. State v.
Barriner, 210 S.W.3d 285, 296 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006).
Where an objection is made at trial, the issue is properly
preserved for our review, and we review the trial court's
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.